One year ago today the coast of Japan was hit by a tsunami as the result of an undersea earthquake of gigantic proportions, one of the five largest earthquakes ever recorded and the largest to ever hit Japan. We all watched in horror as videos of houses, whole towns and lives were destroyed by the forces of nature before our very eyes. But worse was to come. Japan relies on nuclear energy as its main power source as it has no oil, coal or gas to call on. There are 54 nuclear power stations in Japan. The one we all know about now was at the Fukishima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant where there were 3 level 7 meltdowns caused by the failure of the generators that supplied cooling water to the reactors when they were flooded by the tsunami. This disaster was partly preventable because Tepco the company that operated the Fukishima plant had been warned in 2008 that the plant was in danger of being flooded by a major tsunami. As a result of the tsunami, 49 of the 54 nuclear power plants in Japan are still off line as of January this year. 80% of Japan’s population is now anti nuclear.
All around the world Greenpeace activists have been highlighting the fact that governments around the world have not been taking the dangers of nuclear power seriously. Here in the UK activists made their way to Hinkley Point in Somerset where EDF want to build the first nuclear power station in the country for more years than I care to remember. I was living in Newcastle upon Tyne when the fallout from Chernobyl was brought by the wind across the Tyne Valley across the country and know of at least one person who died of leukaemia, which was attributed to fallout from Chernobyl. The problem with nuclear accidents is that we have no idea how long the fallout (literal and metaphorical) will be around. People in the Oshika peninsular are still not allowed to return to their homes and there is still an exclusion zone around Chernobyl. Ironically the Fukishima disaster took place in the 25th anniversary year of Chernobyl.
Despite the disaster, global use of nuclear power is set to grow steadily over the next 20 years but at a much lower rate than previously forecast, with the International Atomic Energy Agency expecting another 90 new nuclear power stations being commissioned by 2030, mainly in China, India and Russia with the United States also promising new nuclear.
As someone with a scientific background I can understand the scientific arguments for nuclear power that are being rolled out these days – the fact that nuclear is carbon free in power generation is very enticing in the fight against climate change. Understanding does not necessarily mean agreement. There are a lot more arguments to be considered when we decide whether to go forward with more nuclear power stations. Many countries are concerned that Iran is building nuclear power stations and see it as a prelude to them getting nuclear weapons. Considering the UK started its nuclear programme in the 1950’s as a way to get fissionable material to make our nuclear weapons, this is not an unreasonable assumption. Then consider the cost: nuclear costs are said to be rising by 5 – 7% per annum currently and are unlikely to go down. The costs of relocating and compensating the people affected by Fukishima is estimated to be over $200million. Post Fukishima, EDF will have to spend €10 billion on extra safety features in France. Not so long ago, in the extremely hot summers of 2003 and 2006, France had to shut down many of its nuclear reactors as the extreme temperatures increased the temperature of river water used to cool the reactors. Then there is the amount of energy produced by nuclear power in this country – less than 20% of our electricity comes from nuclear but nuclear does not contribute to producing heat – and we use much more heat that we do electricity. That means the contribution by nuclear to our total energy bill is much less than that – probably more like 5%. Yet we pay for it in a nuclear subsidy in our energy bills. I remember going on protest marches to highlight how much of our electricity bills went to subsidise nuclear power. And finally we come to the problem of dealing with the waste. We have yet to find a way to deal safely with nuclear waste or to safely decommission our current nuclear power stations. Cleaning and decommissioning of the Windscale Advanced Gas Cooled reactor at Sellafield started in the early 1990's and is only now nearing completion. Across the world there are over 400 nuclear reactors and many of them are coming to the end of their useful lives and will have to be shut down in the next few decades. Only 17 have been fully decommissioned worldwide and the number of reactors closed but not decommissioned is over 100. Yet we insist on building more when we have no idea what to do with them once they have come to the end of their lives.
The arguments against nuclear power in my opinion outweigh the arguments in favour of nuclear power.
Comments